Thu 23 Apr 2009
HOMO-FASCISM
Posted by Skyhawk under Culture , Ethics , Freedom of Speech , Homosexuality , Marriage , Media , Political Correctness[21] Comments
The only thing more intolerant than a Liberal is a gay activist. Our most current example of heterophobic bigotry is provided by the flamboyant Perez Hilton a celebrity judge for the Miss America Pageant. During the question-and-answer portion of the pageant Hilton asked Miss California, Carrie Prejean, the following question: “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
To her credit Miss California answered: “….I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman.” Her honest answer probably cost her the crown according to Hilton (imagine a teenage Barney Frank voice): “The way miss California answered her question lost her the crown, without a doubt!”
In an interview with Larry King Hilton commented: “I do expect Miss USA to be politically correct….Miss USA should be all inclusive.” How does he square these two comments? Apparently being “all inclusive” does not include those who object to gay marriage.
Hilton isn’t the only celebrity with a double standard weighing in on this. Brittany Spears joined Perez Hilton’s “Twitter rally for gay marriage” (I don’t know why, but the words “Twitter rally” and “Perez Hilton” go remarkably well together) saying: “Love is love! People should be able to do whatever makes them happy!” Should people who oppose gay marriage be allowed to do what makes them happy?
So, a beauty pageant contestant gives an honest answer to a question put to her by a pageant judge and for that answer she is discriminated against by that judge who openly admits that he did so. Hilton probably thinks that he’s prettier than Miss California (he’d probably rather be a contestant than a judge too) but shouldn’t someone ask him if he violated her civil rights? Would we allow the pageant to discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity? Then why allow it for personal beliefs?
Gay activists are thoroughly committed to forcing society to accept their abnormal behaviors. They are willing to disrupting religious services, file law suits, intimidate church attendees, spray paint graffiti on church buildings and tear up pictures of the pope on late-night television shows—the usual things they do when they get angry. They’re intent on forcing their will on the rest of us.
We don’t have to look any further than our own state for examples. In 2003 Governor Janet Napolitano signed Executive Order 03-22 (she didn’t think that the voters or their representatives in the legislature could be trusted enough to consult on the matter) directing that no state agency “….shall discriminate in employment solely on the basis of an individual’s sexual orientation…” The purpose of the executive order was to “Affirm the State’s commitment to the elimination of all barriers to employment that artificially restrict hiring, promotion, recruitment, compensation, and tenure on the basis of any status or characteristic that is not directly related to the performance of a job….” (Note to Governor Brewer: could you please rescind this order?)
The next time that Napolitano isn’t busy annoying the Canadians maybe she could, in the spirit of her own executive order, ask the DOJ to investigate the pageant and its discriminatory practices.
To many of us Carrie Prejean is the winner of the pageant.
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
so you think the order that, no state agency “….shall discriminate in employment solely on the basis of an individual’s sexual orientation…” is a bad thing?
You think we should be able to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation?
You just lost all credibility skyhawk
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm
My oh my, Skyhawk. Aren’t we the snarky one.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
“Love is love! People should be able to do whatever makes them happy!” Where does that thought end I wonder?
Johnny, to answer your question, ‘The state agency should never know the sexual orientation of an applicant’ so the issue is mute.
Sexual orientation is a secondary dimention of diversity. Skin color, race, and sex are primary diversity factors, something the individual has no control over.
A secondary dimention of diversity is something that is not generally available for others to know without the individual providing the information.
Secondary dimentions of diversity should not factors to be considered as ‘civil rights’ because its the individual who must disclose their sexual orientation to others.
An absurd but still viable argument would be the FLDS families in Texas with the underaged “wives” and poligamy. They were freaks on TV but Perez Hilton isn’t?
Why is it that Gay’s have this compulsion to advertise what they are?
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
His question had one purpose and it had nothing to do with evaluating the speaking skills of the contestant. He hijacked the event to promote his own agenda. There was only one allowable answer; so without concern to the pageant or other contestants, he fired away with full knowledge that the question…no matter the answer…would now be the issue du jour. Had she answered it to his liking and that contestant won…we would all be talking about how that answer influenced the results.
Either way, his same-sex marriage agenda is getting lots of free press and attention. So is the Miss Universe Pageant. The Donald must be beside himself.
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Veritas Vincit–
What basis do you have for statitng that sexual orientation is a “choice”? From what you are saying, I would assume that you are heterosexual. Did you “choose” to be heterosexual? Given the cultural/societal/legal discrimination against homosexuality, it does not make much sense that someone who was innately attracted romantically and sexually to the opposite sex would go against that attraction and CHOOSE to be homosexual.
Regarding your last state regarding gays having a “compulsion to advertise what they are”–If a heterosexual couple hold hands in public, is that showing a “compulsion to advertise” that they are heterosexual? No. So why shouldn’t a homosexual couple have the same FREEDOM without being labeled as having a “compulsion to advertise what they are”? When co-workers chat, invariably stories about spouses or girlfriends/boyfriends will come up, if the gay person also talks about his/her girlfriend/boyfriend, is that also “advertising what they are”?
Gay people don’t want to force their will on society–they just want the to be able to have the same legal rights. [There is a huge difference between consenting adult homosexuals wanting to enter into a permanent union, and polygamists forcing marriage/sex on underage girls.]
Why do you feel so threatened by this?
April 24th, 2009 at 12:03 am
This is where the right loses all credibility with a large segment of the American population, on a topic they truly know nothing about. To cling to stereotypes (do all heterosexuals go to football games with painted faces and get drunk?) is ignorant and certainly not conducive to the end of saving this country. You ought not to care who else wants to achieve that, too bad you’re stuck on this homophopic thing.
It’s the economy stupid and for every “gay” you see parading on tv there are many more who have initiative and don’t want to be taxed to support other people they’re not responsible for. If you want to squander what goodwill you might have by talking ignorantly, go right ahead, it will be to the peril of a cause but when push comes to shove, if you’re going to be dainty on who agrees with you on every point, who needs you?
Take that message to a tea party. What makes you think they’re the only ones misrepresented by mainstream media?
April 24th, 2009 at 4:40 am
Veritas so if the issue is mute and does not mean anything why call for it to be rescinded?
To imply that gay people feel the need to show their sexual orientation just shows your bigotry and bias against gay people.
The same way I know plenty of heterosexual couples who like to have lots of PDA I know just as many homosexual couples who say I dont need to see why broadcast it.
So to stereotype the way you are just shows your ignorance on the issue, shows why the country considers the republican party a party of bigots.
First you make ridiculous comments about Islam and Sharia law and now these… No wonder we got our asses kicked in the 2008 election with great conservatives like you
April 24th, 2009 at 7:04 am
In 2001, no marriage sanctioning body in human history had ever sanctioned gay marriage – Holland initiated it that year. You know, Holland, the world child porn capital where hookers and blow are legal. A few smelly Western European Democrats and the always reliable Canadians got on board, while 98% of the world’s countries have not. In the U.S., 49 states and D.C. have chosen not to legalize it democratically, with freak show Vermont being the exception (they also gave us a Socialist in the U.S. Senate recently). Noted conservative Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act and it passed the Senate 86-14, with several very liberal senators in support. Every credible poll shows support at about 34% in the population and that is only because the “Will and Grace” generation hasn’t started raising their families yet. None of this establishes any metaphysical truths about gay marriage, but it conclusively establishes that opposition to it is not a fringe phenomenon, it is overwhelming mainstream consensus going back millenia in every culture known to have existed. That is where the constant analogies to racial discrimination break down – societies had condemned racial discriminatione throughout time (as leftist professors are so fond of asserting when recounting the early history of Islam). Forget about Perez Hilton – many far more credible people are trying to silence all debate, by accusing anybody who supports marriage between a man and a woman of prejudice. That is why this silly beauty pageant incident hit such a nerve and that is why the gay marriage absolutists will ultimately fail.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Her answer was amazingly bad. Not because she supports traditional marriage but because it was rambling and incoherent. If her anwer had simply been as you quote that she believes a marriage should be between a man and a woman it would have been a good heartfelt answer. But she first answered people should be free to choose between the either type of marriage. Using the term opposite marriage as opposed to traditional marriage showed a lack of knowledge about some very basic terms. She should not be punished for having unpopular positions but it is fair to punish her for being unable to state her position articulately.
April 24th, 2009 at 9:36 am
“Gay people don’t want to force their will on society…”
No more than radical fundamental Muslims want to either?
Most gay folks would rather live their lives in peace and that’s how it should be. That’s why I’ve made the assertion that its a *minority within a minority* that is agitating and putting this in everyone’s face.
Gretchen, how old are you? When I worked in a very “gay” oriented city several decades ago at the dawn of the AID’s outbreak, to suggest as you have that being a homosexual might be a condition of birth would have had you ridden out of the city on a rail fully tarred and feathered.
Well, times have changed and so has the “official line”. I guess now it is a condition of birth?
Discrimination didn’t happen until they came out of the closet and put themselves in everyone’s face. My great aunt had two dear male friends that were quite homosexual back in the 1950′s and guess what? No one bothered them an they didn’t bother anyone else! One of me real estate agents lived with his partner for over 20 years and guess what? No one discriminated against them – why? Because they never slammed their sexuality in anyone’s face.
Gretchen, you have been what we used to call, ‘brainwashed’ by an activist agenda. Grow out of it.
JR, gonna bet you’re under 30 and a graduate of some public institution of government education with the usual required classes in some “studies” multi-disapline program? Just a guess.
Oh, Johnny have you seen what the nice Muslims religious folks are doing to homosexuals in Iraq these days? Or what that nice Islamic shiek in the UAE did to that guy in the desert? Check it out. Oh yeah, the guys in Iraq? Their using Sharia Law.
I’ve known homosexuals now for over half a century – long before the in-your-face side show began. Its a shame few of you reading this grew up in a traditional family where your parents marriage lasted over 60 years and your Mom stayed home – not because she had to – but because she loved her family and wanted to.
I certainly am glad I am not going to live in the world you are creating. Hope you enjoy it as hollow as it will be.
April 24th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Tad Lad,
you argument sounds very similar to the idea of something that happened in the 1960s called the civil rights movement. People made the same exact argument as you are making now, black leave me alone I leave them alone and there is this small minority within the minority who are getting in everyone’s face. And actually by your rational the civil rights movement was even worse, because African Americans had the doctrine of seperate but equal, gay people do not even have that!
So I guess you liked the idea of segregation… There was nothing wrong with treating African American’s this way right? That in your face guy Dr. Martin Luther King should have just shut up right? After all he was part of a minority within a minority just making things worse for all black people.
This kind of logic is pathetic. We have heard it all before in another form. It was not true and it is not true now.
April 24th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Johnny, you weren’t around then, I was.
Dr King was certainly no “in-your-face” activist. That would have been the other guy (quick run to your books to find out who I mean).
Gays are NOT blacks. Skin color is something your born with on the outside; being gay isn’t.
Look up Elizabeth Wright, Larry Elder or Thomas Sowell for starters. Do some real research outside of your agenda bias and brainwashing.
To compare African-American civil rights to the gay movement is an insult to all African Americans and other peoples of color who struggled for equality and got affirmative action!
April 24th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
You are talking about Malcom X obviously…
I love how being gay is a choice veritas, again thanks for showing your bigotry. This is why they are the same thing, you do not choose to be gay anymore than you choose to be black.
The only reason it is not a good comparison is because the 1960s was a different time in a America and America history. Those were true grassroots movements, much more than anything you will ever see now. However the situation is similar, you have people telling gay people just be happy and leave everyone alone and we will leave you alone.
This is almost exactly what blacks were told, you have your schools, your restaurants, just leave us alone and we will leave you alone. In BOTH situations it is wrong and to say otherwise just proves once again Veritas your bigotry.
April 24th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I guess you could also be referring to Jesse Jackson but he was not as important as Malcolm X and didn’t really start to become annoying till the 1980s. So I am assuming Malcom X
April 24th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
“…tear up pictures of the pope on late-night television shows”
Hmmm which gay activist did this? Are you referring to Sinead O’Connor? Um, not gay, just Irish. Any facts (names, links) to back up those crazy accusations?
April 24th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Johnny, “…you do not choose to be gay anymore than you choose to be black.”
You demonstrate how shallow your knowledge of the history of gay rights in this country is young one. Had you said something like that before about 1988 the gay community would have come down on you like stink on sh*t.
Did you learn about the civil rights movement in school Johnny? Because you certainly didn’t live through it.
Jesse Jackson is a joke and was never a part of the Rev. King’s inner circle nor was Jackson taken seriously until he happend to be at the right place and the right time and took advantage of that timing. Jesse was usually a sort of wanna-be civil rights leader.
But then you had to have lived through it to know that sort of thing.
You’re right Johnny, I do have one prejustice – stupid people. Not ignorant people – they’re just folks who haven’t had the opportunity to learn. No, ignorant people such as yourself who thinks they know about something but have never lived through it and weren’t there fist hand to watch it unfold.
You see, I graduated H.S. with the wrong skin color and wrong language set. One of my group in HS eventually became one of the sharpest looking TS’s you’d ever want to see; only the person I went to HS with was a guy at the time (well, sort of)… and that all happened before Dr. King departed from our company.
How would you know about the 60′s in America?
April 25th, 2009 at 7:53 am
So it is impossible to understand something unless you lived through it? That is some of the most faulty logic I have ever heard.
Many people actually say if you have lived through something you understand it less because there is no way for you to have seen, heard, and understand everything that was going on at the time so you have bias and prejudices based on your own experiences that make you less likely to understand the entire picture.
I am not saying that this the case with you at all but the their logic is just as good as your faulty statements.
This is just something we will have to agree to disagree on. You obviously have no problem not treating Gay people as equals to heterosexuals.
If you had at least had the position that you were in favor of civil unions that would have the effect of marriage in the way of all the benefits and just not calling it that I would at least understand your position. But since you do not, we will have to agree to disagree.
April 25th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
still waiting to hear which activist gays tear up pictures of the pope…..fact check your articles much?
April 25th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
you can read about wildfires and you can see videos of wildfires and you can listen to instructors using a book tell you about wildfires … but i suppose that unless you’ve been engaged directly with a wildfire and come through it, its pretty much not the same.
by your account, the word ‘marriage’ makes them equals? i’ve been missing it all these years. i just sort of treated them as people. guess that was wrong.
April 26th, 2009 at 7:13 am
Veritas you completly understand why last part, what I am saying is the word marriage means nothing. If you had the position that Gay couples could enter into a civil union and get ALL the benefits that a hetero-couple would get for marriage but just did not want to call it marriage because you felt marriage is religious in nature I could at least understand that.
But when you are against even that idea then you just do not want Gay couples to be treated as equals and that is wrong.
April 28th, 2009 at 4:20 am
rightwing nuts